tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post4459955256946605372..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robeStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-50550530221475318192012-01-08T00:18:03.830+08:002012-01-08T00:18:03.830+08:00In my last response to Sciencebod, I realised that...In my last response to Sciencebod, I realised that my Policies did not actually say that each individual will usually have only one comment under each blog post.<br /><br />So I have revised my Comments policy to make that clear:<br /><br />---------------------------------<br />Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate (see below), any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post.<br />---------------------------------<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-32958163112071227902012-01-08T00:15:15.775+08:002012-01-08T00:15:15.775+08:00Sciencebod
> Rather than address all your poin...Sciencebod<br /><br />> Rather than address all your points in one huge indigestible bolus, might <br />> I be allowed to deal with them in bite-sized pieces ...<br /><br />Sorry Sciencebod, but you have misunderstood what my blog is about. It is <br />NOT a debating forum.<br /><br />It is primarily a place where I post MY views, not where others can <br />effectively take it over by using its comments area as a vehicle to post <br />THEIR views.<br /><br />I just don't have the time (or inclination) to respond to your "one huge <br />indigestible bolus ... in bite-sized pieces."<br /><br />My Policies specifically state:<br /><br />---------------------------------<br />Comments ... Any response by me will usually be only once to each <br />individual under that post.<br /><br />Debates After over a decade (1994-2005) debating Creation/Evolution/Design <br />on Internet discussion groups, I concluded that Internet debates were <br />largely a waste of time, so I ceased debating and started blogging.<br />---------------------------------<br /><br />You have had your one post on this topic and so I will delete all the rest.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-71003684211134974412012-01-07T22:25:50.670+08:002012-01-07T22:25:50.670+08:00sciencebod
>When precisely was the repair work...sciencebod<br /><br />>When precisely was the repair work done that introduced so much modern fibre as to produce an allegedly spurious C-dating? <br /><br />It is not an "<i>allegedly</i> spurious C-dating" The Pray Manuscript alone proves that the Shroud was in existence before 1192-95. The ENEA report adds to that proof, by pointing out that the technology did not exist for a medieval or earlier forger to create an image on linen that is only 0.0002 mm thick.<br /><br />I had no position on "when precisiely" the medieval repair was done as I had given it very little thought. <br /><br />But on checking Benford & Marino's 2008 "Discrepancies in the Radiocarbon Dating Area of the Turin Shroud" paper they propose it was in the "16th century":<br /><br />"The exact ratio of patch versus original threads is not determinable by photographic analysis alone; however, a well-supported estimate, based upon weave-pattern changes, has been posited reflecting approximately 60% of the C-14 sample consisting of 16th Century threads while approximately 40% were 1st Century in origin. The radiocarbon date was calculated using the percentage of observed 16th Century versus 1st Century weave types appearing in the Oxford subsample. (Representative dates used were AD 1500 for 16th century and AD 75 for 1st century.) As proposed in our hypothesis, a sample containing ~ 67% AD 1500 radiocarbon and ~ 33% AD 75 radiocarbon should yield a calibrated date of ~ 1210 AD, which is what Oxford obtained in their C-14 dating." (p.19)<br /><br />which I will provisionally accept until I find a reason not to. <br /><br />>I had assumed from reading press reports ... that the new cloth came to be introduced with the repairs carried out after the fire of 1532. ...<br /><br />I am not aware of those press reports, or I have forgotten them.<br /><br />>But when I said as much just a couple of days ago on The Shroud of Turin site ... I was told by no less than Dan Porter himself that I was mistaken - that the repair ... had been done BEFORE the fire, at the behest of Margaret of Austria, whom I have since discovered died two years before the 1532 fire.<br /><br />Your dispute is with Dan Porter, not with me. <br /><br />But you seem confused. Since Margaret of Austria died BEFORE the 1532 fire, then there is no reason why she could not have commissioned the repairs BEFORE that fire.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />So when was repair done on the precise sample(s) taken for C –dating – before or after the 1532 fire? <br /><br />Before. See below. <br /><br />>... if the sampled region was from a medieval repair carried out AFTER the Fire, then why go to all the trouble of invisible mending, requiring meticulous work, especially on a corner of the shroud, well away from the image, when there was gross damage elsewhere that was crudely patched? <br /><br />Sounds a reasonable argument. But you are arguing FOR Dan Porter's position, not against it. <br /><br />Reading Shroud.com's "<a href="http://www.shroud.com/history.htm#1500" rel="nofollow">Shroud History: 1500s</a>" I would have thought between 1502 and 1509 when Marguerite of Austria took control of the Shroud and installed it at Chambéry Castle: <br /><br />"June 11, 1502: At the behest of Duchess of Savoy Marguerite of Austria, the Shroud is no longer moved around with the Savoys during their travels, but given a permanent home in the Royal Chapel of Chambéry Castle. ....<br /><br />1509: New casket/reliquary for the Shroud is created in silver by Flemish artist Lievin van Latham, having been commissioned by Marguerite of Austria at a cost of more than 12,000 gold ecus. ..."<br /><br />would be a likely time that invisble repairs were made to the Shroud. <br /><br />But I have ordered Joe Marino's new book, "Wrapped Up in the Shroud" and will wait and see what he says in it.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-60534922768864178932012-01-07T21:01:33.570+08:002012-01-07T21:01:33.570+08:00Can someone, maybe the blogger himself (hello ther...Can someone, maybe the blogger himself (hello there Stephen) clarify a point for me? When precisely was the repair work done that introduced so much modern fibre as to produce an allegedly spurious C-dating? <br /><br />I had assumed from reading press reports (which we know can be careless on detail) that the new cloth came to be introduced with the repairs carried out after the fire of 1532. That is confirmed in the following passage:<br /><br />"But those tests were in turn disputed on the basis that they were skewed by contamination by fibres from cloth that was used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages. This is the most likely explanation: the radiocarbon laboratories dated a patch on the Shroud that was medieval!"<br /><br />But when I said as much just a couple of days ago on The Shroud of Turin site, admittedly to make what this unashamed sceptic thought was a telling point to dismiss the likelihood of gross contamination, I was told by no less than Dan Porter himself that I was mistaken - that the repair, indeed near invisible repair by French re-weaving, had been done BEFORE the fire, at the behest of Margaret of Austria, whom I have since discovered died two years before the 1532 fire.<br /><br />“Sciencebod, please first get the facts. The French Reweaving (a method known by that name, not artisans of a particular nationality — think French fries) was for a repair that was made before the fire. The repair was likely commissioned by Margaret of Austria*, Hapsburg princess, Regent of the Netherlands, wife to Philibert II of Savoy and legal custodian of the shroud and the House of Savoy collection of tapestries. <br />The repairs after the fire, which are crude patches, are unrelated to the reweaving.”<br /><br />http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/tom-chivers-has-an-opportunity-to-do-some-real-investigative-journalism/<br /><br />So when was repair done on the precise sample(s) taken for C –dating – before or after the 1532 fire? Much hangs on having a reliable answer to that question... To repeat my earlier question: if the sampled region was from a medieval repair carried out AFTER the Fire, then why go to all the trouble of invisible mending, requiring meticulous work, especially on a corner of the shroud, well away from the image, when there was gross damage elsewhere that was crudely patched?sciencebodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12051016731274875332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-33110773495749571392012-01-02T20:28:10.356+08:002012-01-02T20:28:10.356+08:00Gio
Sorry, I just realised that I had previously ...Gio<br /><br />Sorry, I just realised that I had previously seen that article, "<a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100125247/the-turin-shroud-is-fake-get-over-it/" rel="nofollow">The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it</a>," by Tom Chivers. I fact I have it listed in my post above.<br /><br />I thought you had posted me a new article against the Shroud by Chivers.<br /><br />As I stated, I will respond to Chivers' article after I post my comments on a Google English translation of the Italian ENEA report.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-912479429942621092012-01-02T14:41:28.396+08:002012-01-02T14:41:28.396+08:00Gio
>Have you taken a look at this article, by...Gio<br /><br />>Have you taken a look at this article, by chance:<br /><br />Thanks for the link. I had not yet seen that article.<br /><br />>The article commits a lot of fallacies and has a lot of misunderstandings<br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br />I am preparing a post commenting on a Goggle English translation of the ENEA report.<br /><br />Then I plan to post a Response to Critics. But instead of the latter. I may now post a reponse to this Chiver's article.<br /><br />>but I found one quote he got from Raymond Rogers interesting:<br />><br />>"If any form of radiation degraded the cellulose of the linen fibers to produce the image color, it would have had to penetrate the entire diameter of a fiber in order to color its back surface""<br /><br />I was not aware of those words from Rogers, nor why he said it: the Shroud image is only on the inside of the cloth, nearest Jesus' body, both front and back, as far as I am aware.<br /><br />But I have now Googled and found those words online in a Rogers' paper, "<a href="http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf" rel="nofollow">Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin - A Review</a>."<br /><br />And what he means is that there is image coloration on both sides of the flax fibrils, not on both sides of the cloth. <br /><br /> >- Do you have/know of any responses to that? <br /><br />Having read in detail the translated ENEA report, yes, I do have a perfectly adequate response to that. That is why I felt I had to first go right through the ENEA report, to find out what it actually said, before I responsed to any critics.<br /><br />And that there is image coloration on both sides of the flax fibrils, actually helps <i>confirm</i> the ENEA hypothesis that the Shroud image was created by the equivalent of a pulse of high-energy ultraviolet light!<br /><br />But you, and other readers, will have to wait until I first post my comments on the ENEA report and then post my response to Chivers' article.<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-68661528653246280242012-01-02T12:31:24.869+08:002012-01-02T12:31:24.869+08:00Have you taken a look at this article, by chance:
...Have you taken a look at this article, by chance:<br /><br />http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100125247/the-turin-shroud-is-fake-get-over-it/<br /><br />The article commits a lot of fallacies and has a lot of misunderstandings, for instance he fails to extend the implications of the study and his source defending the carbon dating essentially dismisses everything that disagrees, but I found one quote he got from Raymond Rogers interesting:<br /><br />""If any form of radiation degraded the cellulose of the linen fibers to produce the image color, it would have had to penetrate the entire diameter of a fiber in order to color its back surface""<br /><br />- Do you have/know of any responses to that?Giohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14538159578771079797noreply@blogger.com